Daily Press: Higher taxes, more drugs, fewer elections
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, January 15th, 2009 | PolicyIf anyone is still researching the cause of the thinning rolls of newspaper readership, they should check out the latest editorial in the Daily Press. It shows how truly out in the stratosphere the views of those in the venerable press corps actually are.
They give advice to the General Assembly and with any luck, Democrats will listen to the advice they give in “Calling all legislators” and Republicans will just let the phone ring.
The Daily Press wants a raise in the gas tax, calling it “reasonable” and calling it a “basic responsibility.” A tax increase is a basic responsibility? The legislature would be lucky if we didn’t turn the Chesapeake Bay into the high-octane Boston Tea Party.
The Daily Press compares marijuana to caffeine, and says that since a soda is legal, so should marijuana. Did they go to a Grateful Dead concert once and see folks passing around Diet Coke? “Hey man, don’t bogart that Pepsi.”
I encourage every Democrat to vote for drug legalization in Virginia. Please.
Elections are a problem for the press, too. Voters must have too much say in government according to the press, making government (I know this is a radical notion) accountable to the voters.
So they want to get rid of a few (elections, not voters, although I don’t think they’d oppose the latter either). Sheriffs, Treasurers, Commissioners of Revenue, Clerks of Court. The Daily Press thinks judges and City Managers should pick these people, and not anything as destructive as elections.
They continue their hatred of elected officials by saying that they shouldn’t draw district lines, contrary to 200 years of this little experiment called “elected representation.” The Daily Press sides with “appointed representation” with their support for an “independent redistricting commission.”
Why would a newspaper have such consistent hostility against elections?
On to education, where the Daily Press thinks there are just too many Virginians attending Virginia’s top colleges and universities. They oppose a proposal to a 70% level of in-state students for these schools. We could talk for hours about why a Virginia newspaper would want to turn away a Virginian student in favor of a Massachusetts one, while pushing local students out of state.
There are two words I can think of if Democrats actually answer the Daily Press’ urging to raise taxes, legalize drugs, oppose voters and keep Virginians out of college.
Republican rebound.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
20 Responses to "Daily Press: Higher taxes, more drugs, fewer elections"
You are right Brian, this is ridiculous. The Daily Press and other liberal newspapers clearly have an agenda. One of the most distressing of their calls is their desire to see students be pushed out of state in favor of more liberal students from the more liberal areas of places like Mass. and Vermont. Many of the students born and raised here in VA support the Second Amendment and are pro-military and pro-life. Overall I think that they favor traditional values. Liberal politicians would love to see them leave VA and take their votes elsewhere.
Marijuana should be legal, no doubt about it. Read the history behind it, there were laws for mandatory hemp production until Dupont figured out synthetic hemp and paid doctors to say pot made you kill people. Then congress banned hemp and the rest is history. Legalizing weed would cause a huge drop in crime and a huge increase in tax income.
Max,
Have you seen what is going on in Mexico right now. There is a vicious war between the drug cartels and the law. The drug cartels get a steady flow of money from addicted people and then use that money to gain power through bribery or murder. The Mexican govt. is severely infiltrated by these cartels, and could literally be facing collapse. Do you honestly think that the power grabbing on the part of the drug cartels will decrease if you legalize drugs.
Consider this as well, if you have health insurance through your company, legalized drugs could drive your company’s costs through the roof. I don’t know about you, but I think that sounds kind of unaffordable.
The cartels get that steady flow of money because weed is illegal and they monopolize production and distribution. Let drug companies grow pot, sell it, and then the government taxes it and the drug dealers get undercut and disappear.
An 8th of mid grade costs around 30 dollars, drop that to 5 and there will not be a single person trying to sell pot outside the newly commercialized system.
Great, Government can subsidize addiction! They subsidize everything else.
Let’s not forget that the moral underpinning of a government is critical to it’s survival. Don’t take my word for it, ask the founding fathers.
Weed is not addicting, except psychologically. Now people can say thats addiction but I call it something else; enjoyment. If you enjoy something its addicting. The government would collect taxes on the companies growing and selling the weed and would save billions not having to arrest, try, and jail these people. Driving under the influence of weed would be on par with DUI and there could be laws about use in public, etc. Weed simply is not a bad drug, we need to focus on cocaine and heroin, etc. Aside from cocaine being the best oral anesthetic and blood clotting agent it has no purpose. Though I must admit those cocaine cones did wonders when I broke my nose.
Max, Look at Webster’s definition. Isn’t about enjoying something, it’s about compulsively needing something!!
Webster’s definition:
Main Entry: ad·dic·tion
Pronunciation: \?-?dik-sh?n, a-\
Function: noun
Date: 1599
1: the quality or state of being addicted
2: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal ; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
It’s hard to believe you think that weed isn’t a bad drug. I’ve heard people argue that it’s not a gateway drug and therefore relatively harmless. There are far too many examples (including my own brother) that prove otherwise. It’s funny how the people who push the hardest to get marijuana legalized are usually the ones who regularly use drugs themselves. Just because you want to do drugs doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be illegal.
Reggie,
It depends on your definition of harmless and if something being harmless means it should be illegal. Weed is 10 times better than alcohol, no one can challenge that. Alcohol is legal and thousands die every year from it. No way you can OD on weed, you smoke 100 dollars worth of weed you pass out, drink a hundred dollars and odds are someone will die.
As for addiction, there is a difference between needing something and wanting something. While some people do crave weed other crave it like coffee. Is coffee physically addicting? To an extent, but its the feeling of concentration and awareness that keeps people coming back. If you kept the physically addicting qualities of caffeine, but take away its ability to keep you alert and people would not be nearly as drawn towards it.
This is the problem with people today, you take words to have concrete meanings set by a corrupt society. You have to view words in relativity to the rest of the world.
I hardly think a dictionary can be equated to a corrupt society. You tried to define addiction as “enjoying” something. With your definition, practically everything would be an addiction. The difference is occasionally I enjoy a cup of coffee where others must drink it to prevent the physiological sympton of a caffeine withdrawal headache when they don’t
Some things are concrete, like the fact that weed is an addictive drug. I don’t deny that alcohol can be addictive. The difference is it doesn’t cause you to move on to other, more destructive drugs the same way marijuana does.
Reggie you so missed my point that it is very sad. I should not even try to explain it again because you are obviously brainwashed, but just the same…
People often use the word addiction to describe tendencies that arise from enjoyment of the activity as opposed to a physical need to have the substance in your body, The dictionaries definition of addiction is not always what the word means when applied in different settings. You obviously do not understand the mechanics of language and information theory. All “addiction” is, is a bunch of squiggly and straight lines that when seen by YOUR brain means the exact definition in the dictionary, in this case you mean a physical addiction because mental addictions can stem primarily from enjoyment, IE I am addicted to reading. Addiction is not always a bad thing, like in my case with books.
The worst part is you just said alcohol does not lead to worse drugs. Are you serious? Alcohol severely affects your judgment and motor functions, I have never seen anyone come to schools drunk and not have it be noticeable. I have never seen someone take a test drunk and pass it or even fill in a bubble correctly. I have seen the smartest kids and best athletes at my school get high before championship matches and final exams and do amazing at both. There is likely not one pro surfer who places in contests that does not smoke, but you cannot swim drunk. So your going to tell me a drunk college kid is not going to sniff powder off a table at 3am when hes got class the next day and a stoner watching Half Baked with his friends is going to go seek out some thug guy in the ghetto and try and cop a G? Your crazy, weed doesnt lead to teen pregnancies, kids getting DRUNK and having sex does.
Your facts are seriously skewed as is your logic. Read a book, turn of the news, and open your eyes. Just because something is legal does not make it right.
Obviously you don’t understand. Just because someone chooses to use a word out of context doesn’t mean that the true definition of that word changes. Also, it’s apparent that I do read books including occasionally looking up a word in the dictionary. Maybe you should try it sometime instead of creating your own definition to fulfill your desire to promote drug use.
You give lots of examples of how alcohol impairs a person’s faculties but no correlation between drinking alcohol & suddnely wanting to snort coke.
I’ll tell you what I do see. Lots of people that drink alcohol regularly that have successful careers & personal lives. I’ll tell you what I don’t see. Lots of people that smoke dope regularly that are successful.
Maybe you should smoke less dope and ready more dictionaries to get some clarity.
Wow, dude, your hopeless. I’m addicted to reading. That means I have a compulsive need to read, The dictionary definition says I should have withdrawal. I do not go through physical withdrawal when I do not read, therefore I am not addicted according to the dictionary. Does that mean I cannot use the word? No it means the word has a different meaning. If you cannot see that then I am truly sorry for your ignorance.
If your drunk your more likely to sniff coke cause you do not care just like you are more likely to have sex. Again, if you did not get that you are logic impaired.
You do not see lots of people who smoke dope being successful because it is illegal, people are not just going to come out and say they use it publicly, but I bet you nearly every comedian and pro surfer, skater, snowboarder, lots of authors, scientists (Neil Tyson), and even college teachers smoke dope. You can function on weed, you can work high, you cannot do jack when your drunk. How many people died because of smoking weed or running over someone while stoned? Now how many people die from alcohol poisoning?
Oh, and your definition says addiction has to be harmful. That simply is not the case. The dictionary is not god, there are thousands of words commonly used with different meanings then are in the dictionary. Stop being a word nazi.
Talk about impaired logic. Weed is a mind altering substance. When a person is under the influence of weed it impairs their function and their judgment.
Maybe sometime when you aren’t under the influence you can take a look around at those who are. They behave differently and make decisions differently because they are under the influence of a mind altering substance.
You don’t get pregnant because you’re drunk. You get pregnant because you made a bad decision to have unprotected sex. That bad decision can be made under the influence of weed just the same as under the influence of alcohol.
People can work when drunk. They just aren’t as effective or efficient. Same result when you’re high.
Definition doesn’t say it has to be harmful. Just says you compulsively use something that is known to be harmful. Kinda like smoking weed!
Um, if you have ever read any of the studies done on weed it is a million times less impairing than alcohol, in fact it has many medicinal uses, a trip to a pot club in California will tell you that. It increases blood flow to the eyes, relieves stress, increases Appetite, decreases pain, it is a god send for cancer patients. As for mind altering being bad, bro, coffee alters your mind, a fucking grapefruit alters your mind. If your going to use that as your standard of proof for being bad then you might as well be George Bush using unilateral intelligence to make decisions. You’ve only been told one side of the story, funded by Dupont and his cronies.
As for being less efficient while drunk just like being high…I know for a fact hundreds of thousands of people drive stoned every day and do not get in accidents. The same cannot be said for alcohol. I know personally at least a dozen pro surfers who smoke and they all could not do jack surfing while drunk, they would not even try. Seriously a stoned person could easily type, a drunk one could not even press one key at a time without serious effort. Face it, alcohol is far worse than weed yet it is legal.
Talk about skewing the facts to support your cause of legalizing marijuana! A million times less impairing? Alcohol has many medicinal purposes as well.
Why do you insist on bringing surfing into every conversation? There are many more occupations in the world besides surfing. Oh I get it, you can’t prove your argument because doctors, lawyers, and accountants are too smart to smoke weed.
Maybe one day you’ll look at the thousands of occupations out there instead of just extreme sports. Then you’ll realize you can’t get evidence to support your theory when looking at a real occupation instead of “Surf’s up dude”
Maybe one day you learn to recognize hyperbole and quit while your behind. You refute nothing of what I have said. Nice toying with you, it was entertaining while it lasted.
Too bad it wasn’t educational for you. I think we are at a stalemate. You’ll never convince me that marijuana is good for you and should be legalized and I’ll never convince you that it’s harmful and should stay illegal.
I have a lot better things to do with my Saturday that don’t include internet blogging. See ya on the flip side!
First off, I am against the legalization of marijuana, this comes from someone who has past experience with the drug. From anyone currently addicted to the drug, I will ask that you first clear your mind of it before you consider the pros and cons of your addiction. Once your mind is more clear you will understand the threat.
But I want to get into one of the other topics Brian attempted to introduce, fuel taxes. Brian stated:
“The Daily Press wants a raise in the gas tax, calling it “reasonable” and calling it a “basic responsibility.” A tax increase is a basic responsibility? The legislature would be lucky if we didn’t turn the Chesapeake Bay into the high-octane Boston Tea Party.”
I wish to say that I support the fuel tax increase. I am a truck driver. I pay fuel taxes every year that dwarfs what every average citizen pays. I think I can speak with authority that an increase in the fuel tax is warranted. In fact, even the ATA (American Truckers Association) has signaled the support of increased fuel taxes as being just.
I will point out to my Republican friends that the ATA is not compromised of a group of left wing extremists. Last time I checked the overwhelming majority of their campaign contributions went to the Republican Party. In an effort to not over exaggerate I will only claim that 90% (probably more) went to Republican candidates and that these contributions were not insignificant.
David, you’re only problem is that people are not of the belief that government doesn’t get enough of our money.
Ever notice how the last tax increase never seems to be enough?
Leave your response